Uzengili is a small village in extreme Eastern Turkey. It is
within shouting distance of the site that was affirmed as
containing the remains of Noah's Ark. This site was discovered in
March 1985 by David Fasold and Ronald Wyatt. At that time snows
still were deep in the region. as soon as Fasold saw the site, he
exclaimed that it was a ship wreck.

Fasold speculated that there had been a pre-flood iron age,
from Genesis 4:22, where the Bible discusses the forges of
Tubal-Cain. As a former ships officer, he further was persuaded
that if iron were available for ships fittings in the time of
Noah, such metal fabrication, that hardest available, would have
been used.

With the word getting out, a third person attached himself to
the team, John Baumgartner, a mathematician with some geophysical
background. So it was that in June 1985, with Wyatt and
Baumgartner, Fasold brought a state of the art frequency
generator, set it on the wave length for iron, and the team began
to search for subsurface of the suspected Ark Artifact site for
internal iron loci. F1

The question was and still is) whether or not, within this
suspected Ark Site, there was any deteriorating iron, former iron
ships fittings. If this were the Ark formation, the probability
is that of the other original materials except metals would have
long since deteriorated and degraded into soil. So, in the summer
of 1985, Fasold, Wyatt and Baumgartner dragged a subsurface radar
antenna over much of the site as well as spot checking with a
metal detector.

The Ark site is located at 39° 50 min. N. latitude N. and
43° 45 min. E. longitude. It is 2 miles north of the
Turko-Iranian border. As the crow flies, this site is l0.5 miles
southeast of Dogubayazit, and is 18 miles and within a degree or
two of due south from the top of Mt. Ararat, the largest volcanic
cone on the continent of Asia, elevation, l6,946 ft.

The elevation of this Ark site averages 6,300 feet above mean
sea level. The difference within the artifact, bow to aft, is
about a 100 feet. This elevation is several hundred feet below
the Ark's original moorage, as is reported in "The Epic of
Gilagmesh."

The location Nisir is cognate with "Nasar", the name
of this village for several thousand years. In the 1950's the
village's name was changed to Uzengili, which in Kurdish
tradition, also has overtones of the Ark story. Thus, if this
Uzengili-Nisir site is verified as the Ark Site. geologists will
need to explain waters floating a large barge, over 500 feet
long, at least 6,600 feet above modern sea level. This is the
conundrum, or problem, for 20th century geology, and Collins, one
of its professionals.

The suspected Ark site is a boat shaped formation. Its length
was measured according to stakes which were posted above where
subsurface iron loci were indicated. This Artifact's length was
carefully measured at 515 feet. Since the Egyptian cubit is 20.6
inches, this length also is 300 Egyptian cubits, which agrees
with the Genesis account for vessel length.

Perhaps of equal import, as shall be demonstrated, is that its
length also was measured at 6,180 (modern) English inches. 6,l80
is a "phi" number; phi is an irrational number like pi,
1.6l8... Phi's inverse is .618....

No depth measurements could be determined from the Ark
Artifact. However marine engineering and naval architecture
indicate an average depth of 30 cubits, or 5l+ feet is
reasonable. A depth of 30 cubits would agree with the Genesis
account.

This Artifact is boat-shaped. The Genesisaccount implies a
box-like shape. Were Noah's Ark box-shaped, it would have rolled
quickly in turbulent waters. Marine engineering requires a safe
vessel to be boat-shaped to survive rough water.

In June 1991, Samuel Windsor made a personal surveillance trip
to the Ark Site with Fasold, Mrs. Windsor and seven others. He
saw the metal detector in action, recording metal in the
subsurface zone of the Ark Artifact. He saw those subsurface
deposits located on the surface with a stake. He saw the stakes
in series begin form lines. He was impressed.

In 1991 Windsor prepared a computer program of the Ark
Artifact, and entered the Fasold data of the various lines and
line measurements. Next he asked the computer, "What is the average
width of the Ark Artifact"? For a marine engineer this
is a normal question.

The computer's response was 1,027 inches, or 85.6 ft., or
49.85 cubits. 49.85 cubits is very close to 50 cubits, which is
the width dimension given in Genesis. This means that the Genesis
account addresses the Ark's average width; it was boat
shaped, and not a box-shaped vessel.

This means that the Genesis account is a volumetric
measurement of a boat-shaped artifact. This is normal in
naval architecture. In our age, nobody cites the size of a vessel
by length, but rather by tons of displaced water. This, too, is a
volumetric measure. Such is the method of measurement for volume
for sea-going vessels.

Geologist Lorence Collins, who has never been to Turkey, much
less the Ark Site, has "announced" that the Ark
Artifact Site is a "natural rock structure" whereas its
subsurface materials happen not to be rock at all.

Collins hopes that his opinion is valid, because if this is
the Ark Site, geology then must explain sudden, vast, high
velocity masses of water, floating the Ark some 7,000 feet high
above mean sea level, sweeping it suddenly into Inner Asia, from
the south. Pre-flood Shuruppak (as is about to be
demonstrated) was the Ark's construction location. And with the
erratic boulders of India, a parallel case, geology must be able
to explain high velocity, high elevation water.

Shuruppak is 520 miles south and ten degrees east of the Ark
Site. Further, the Indian Ocean, containing almost 30,000,000
cubic miles of sea water, was some 1,200 miles directly south.
Neither Collins nor any other geologist can explain vast, high
velocity waters sweeping South Asia from the Indian Ocean,
flowing entirely across the southern part of Asia, and into Inner
Asia. If geologists like Collins cannot explain this, therefore,
he presumes, it could not have happened. Really?

The location of the construction of Noah's Ark is known to
purveyors of ancient cuneiform tablets found in the Near East
during the l9th century. Nine separate flood stories have been
found, three in Sumerian, three in Chaldean, and three in
Assyrian. The longest of the nine flood stories is in the Epic of
Gilgamesh; it is four times as long as is the Genesis account of
the Flood. And it was compiled and written by Gilgamesh some 700
to 750 years earlier than was the Genesis account by Moses.

The pre-flood city of Shuruppak is identified in the Epic of
Gilgamesh as the city of residence of Noah (or
"Utnapishtim" in Gilgamesh). Gilgamesh indicates this
was the geographic place in Mesopotamia where the Ark of Noah was
both designed and constructed.

It is known that many Mesopotamian post-flood cities were
rebuilt on top of the pre-flood city. Shuruppak was one of the
most important of them. Discover post-flood Shuruppak, and one
immediately locates pre-flood Shuruppak.

"Shuruppak, -- a city which thou knowest,
(and which) is situated [on the bank of the river
Euphrates -- That city was already old, and the
gods were in its midst. (Now) their heart
prompted the great gods [to] bring a
deluge." F2

As is "Teddy" for Theodore Roosevelt,
"Noah" in Genesis may well be the shortened name, in
Hebrew, for the Sumerian "Utnapishtim". His shortened
name is given in the Egyptian Book of the Dead as "Nu"
in its flood account, and another shortened name,
"Manu" is used in the Vedic flood story in the Rig Veda
of ancient India.

Pre-flood Shuruppak, and on top of it, post-flood Shuruppak,
are located at approximately 31° 47 min. No. latitude and 45°
35 min. E. longitude. This archaeological site is 125 miles
southeast of Baghdad and is also 220 miles north northeast of
salt water, the Persian Gulf (and Kuwait).

Gilgamesh sites pre-flood Shuruppak as being then on the bank
of the Euphrates, a detail of more than casual interest. This
indicates that pre-flood Shuruppak was a river port, and an
entrepot some 200 miles upstream from salt water. River ports
normally were commercial centers, and boat-building and repair
centers. Shuruppak well may have had some kind of a pre-flood
boat-building and repair industry (like Seattle in our age).

The Uzengili (Nisir) formation is boat-shaped, and resembles
the Genesis account in length, depth and average width. The
Uzengili-Nisir location is also where, according to Gilgamesh,
the Ark was finally moored. This is stated and restated five
times in Gilgamesh, probably indicating that mooring the vessel
was a very difficult and dangerous endeavor.

Fifteen and twenty degree grades are normal in these
mountains, in which there is one small 10-acre flat bench. On
that small bench the village Uzengili-Nasar, the namesake of Mt.
Nisir, is located.

On Mount Nisir the ship landed.
Mount Nisir held the ship fast and did not let
(it) move. F3

Uzengili-Nisir is 520 miles north and slightly west of
pre-flood Shuruppak. This village is at an elevation of some
6,600 feet above mean sea level. This indicates that if this is
the Ark Site, then the Flood waters were (a) sudden, (b) high
velocity, (c) northerly in direction, (d) crested at over 7,000
feet above modern sea level, and (e) came from the general
direction of the Indian Ocean to the south.

The Indian Ocean is our planet's second largest ocean,
containing some 23% of the Earth's surface water, almost
30,000,000 cubic miles of salt water. Its average depth is 10,500
feet. It is bordered by Antarctica on the south, West Australia,
East Africa and India on the north.

In 1988, David Fasold wrote "The Ark of Noah".F4
Therein, he described both this suspected Ark Site, and he gave
its measurements, based on flags placed above loci where the
frequency generator indicated a bit of iron below within the
formation. He also discussed eleven drogue stones, located 5
miles northwest of Dogubayazit, at Kazan, which is some 15 miles
from the Ark Site. This drogue stone issue is treated in a
separate, but related essay.

The drogue stones, in Fasold's mind, served just like drogue
stones of recent times in boats going up and down the Nile River.
Their function, as they drag along in the water behind the boats,
is to prevent any capsizing in event the boat is suddenly struck
sideways by a surprise wave. The modern term for the drogue
stones would be "sea anchors".

Modern geological dogma does not offer a force, a cause or a
scenario that could have relocated Noah's Ark so far, so high and
so quickly. The supreme dogma of modern geology is Lyell's
"gradualism" (uniformitarianism); it dates to the
1830's. Before that, in early l9th century geology, the two basic
explanations for causing forces were Neptunism (by vast amounts
of water) and Plutonism (by vast amounts of fiery sub-crustal
magma upheavals).

Lyell substituted "natural forces" such as
weathering, and four billion years of it because he assumed
Hutton's doctrine, "the present is the key to the past"
in Earth history; it isn't.

Near Eastern flood stories occur nine times in the oldest
writing of the Near East, cuneiform on clay tablets. In addition
flood accounts occur in Hebrew, Egyptian, Greek, Armenian and
Vedic Indian, suggesting a dating of 5,000 years ago or less.
There is also a significant flood story in Chinese.

The Ark Artifact at 6,300 feet, if accepted, throws Lyell's
dogma into shambles. Thus the Ark Artifact is an assault the
central, sacrosanct dogma of modern geology, Lyell's
uniformitarianism, or gradualism. If this site if verified, it
throws historical geology into chaos.

This site is 600+ miles from the closest arm of the Persian
Gulf, and it is over 1,200 miles from the open Indian Ocean.
Gradualist geologists cannot imagine how Noah's Ark could be
floated so high and so far, remain so famous despite their
debunking.

What they cannot imagine, or understand, they consider
"impossible". Such is the condition of late 210th
century geology, and the thinking of the skeptic, Lorence
Collins.

Lorence G. Collins, Northridge California, a reputable
geologist, has written an essay debunking and declaiming this
Artifact site as "bogus", "pseudoscience" and
as "a natural geological misidentification". This is
despite the fact that Collins has never been to the Ark Artifact
Site to inspect its details, or to overview the local physical
geography and geology. But local on site inspection is the basic
method of geology. Nonetheless, his "Bogus 'Noah's
Ark'" essay was published in 1996 in the respected Journal
of Geoscience Education.F5

Collins frequently uses emotion-laden words and phrases
intermixed with geological terminology intended to cast doubt,
prejudice and rejection on this site without supplying
any data. Prejudicial words aside, without data, his analysis
has no scientific substance.

There is a parallel issue to the northerly relocation of
Noah's Ark and its drogue stones a vast distance. The erratic
boulders of South India also were located a vast distance into
North India. The erratic boulders of India, weighing up to 150
tons, have been relocated northerly a distance of 800 to 1,000
miles.F6

This is farther in distance, but is the identical in direction
to the relocation of Noah's Ark from Shuruppak to the Ark
Artifact Site. As is mentioned above, Ark's drogue stones (anchor
stones), the Indian erratics and high velocity water will be
discussed in a second essay in debate with Collins and his
material.

One of three issues is highlighted in this essay. It is (1)
the pattern of subsurface iron loci in spots reported by
the metal detector and a "frequency generator". The
second issue is (2) the "drogue stones" (apparently
anchor stones) located outside the village of Kazan, 15 miles to
the northwest and the cause of Noah's Flood. The third
issue is high velocity waters and tides.F7

This essay is directed only to the issue of the subsurface
iron loci, their flagging, and the lines their flags form. So far
it is established that it is a nautical shape, a boat-like
pattern, and the external measurements agree with the Genesis
account when it is realized that the Genesis width is the average
width and one is not dealing with a box-like Artifact. And in
1990 and 1991, Windsor entered Fasold's data into his computer,
already rich with marine engineering data.

In 1985, Fasold, Wyatt and Baumgartner covered about 70% of
the Ark artifact site with their ground penetrating radar, metal
detection equipment, and frequency generator equipment. Both
Fasold (in 1985) and Baumgartner (1986) found over 3,500
individual subsurface iron loci, or spots, which were duly
flagged and recorded in logs. Had the entire Ark Site been
covered, Fasold estimates there would be a total count of 5,400
discrete iron loci.

The iron loci are thought to be remains of ancient iron ship
fittings. Fasold, formerly a ships officer in the merchant
marine, theorized, logically, that Noah would have used the
hardest metal available for casting fittings. Fasold was well
aware than in Genesis 4, a pre-flood iron age is mentioned. We
(Windsor and I) also observed a carbonized (case hardened) iron
dagger in the Ataturk Museum, Ankara. It was dated at 2900 B.C.E.

Samuel Windsor (mech. eng., Wichita St., l959) is co-owner of
the firm, Bronson & Windsor, Seattle. This is a busy firm in
the Ballard district of Seattle, specializing in marine
engineering and naval architecture. Windsor's co-owner, L. E.
(Bud) Bronson, has degrees from the U. S. Naval Academy (B.S.
l961) and from the school of naval architecture (M. A., Univ. of
Mich., 1972). Bronson concurs with Windsor's analysis and
conclusions.

Fasold made his iron loci log data available to Windsor after
Windsor confirmed some of the readings himself. As was mentioned,
in 1991 Windsor then prepared a program and entered the data of
the iron loci on his office computer. He wrote two essays on the
topic of Noah's Ark and the Ark Artifact at Uzengili/Nisir.F8,
F9

Collins announces, by avoiding the evidence, that there are no
man-made designs or patterns within the Ark Artifact. Nothing
could be farther from the truth about this archaeological
artifact.

In his computer analysis, and with his marine engineering
background, Windsor made a series of discoveries about the Fasold
data of the iron loci. Fasold was astounded. There is no question
of collusion between Fasold's 1985 findings and those of Windsor
(1991) because in 1985 Fasold perceived only that the loci fell
into lines typical of a floating marine artifact.

Fasold published his data in l988; Windsor did his computer
analysis in 1991, one year after his visit to the Ark Site.
Neither Fasold or his associates, Wyatt or Baumgartern, could
have anticipated in advance what Windsor's computer would reveal
concerning the Ark Artifact.

"Phi", like "pi", is an irrational number
- 1.6180.... Phi is a fascinating irrational number. For instance
in numerical patterns, the square of phi is 2.618. The inverse of
phi (phi over one) is .618. The inverse of phi squared is .382.
Thus the inverse of phi squared plus phi squared equals 3. The
inverse of phi squared plus phi equals 2. The inverse of phi
squared plus the inverse of phi equals 1.

In mathematics as in nature, 1.6180339... is a widely noted
and widely employed irrational number. Mathematically, phi is 1 +
sq. rt. of 5 divided by 2. In nature, the phi ratio results in
the spiral of least resistance.

Another way to approximate phi is the "Fibonacci
series". This series is where each new number is the sum of
its two predecessors. Phi is approximated by dividing the last
number by it preceding number. Examples are:

2 + 3 = 5 which is 1.667... of "3".
3 + 5 = 8 which is 1.600000 of "5".
5 + 8 = 13 which is 1.625000 of "8".
8 + 13 = 21 which is 1.6154... of "13".
13 + 21 = 34 which is 1.6190... of
"21".
21 + 34 = 55 which is 1.6176... of
"34".

The longer the series is extended, the more precise becomes
phi, 1.6180........

Fibonacci was an Italian mathematician of the 12th century who
published Liber Abci. He was the first European in the
modern age to write on Arabian and Indian mathematics.

Artists are interested in "phi", because the
"phi" proportion is the most pleasing proportion for
landscape paintings. A rectangle with phi as the width and one as
the height is the "golden rectangle", so widely used in
paintings.

In marine biology, "phi" is of interest because the
shell of the chambered nautilus spreads out like a phi spiral.
Botanists are interested in "phi" because the phi
spiral it describes the sequence off branches coming of the trunk
of a tree. And the phi spiral is noted in the seed pattern in the
sunflower.

Marine engineers are interested in "phi" because at
the coast line, phi describes the curve of incoming breakers.
Meteorologists and climatologists are interested in phi because
"phi" describes the spiral circulation of air in dust
devils, in tornadoes, in typhoons, in hurricanes and in cyclones.

Naval vessels are designed with "phi" in mind. It
relates to minimizing water resistance for oceanic voyages. Phi
(1.6180...) happens to be the ratio involving the least friction
in nature. Or, put another wa, Nature "loves" phi. But
so, apparently, did the designer of the Ark artifact.

Windsor considers "phi" was a basic relationship in
the designing of the Ark. For instance, once the length and the
required deck area were determined, it showed Noah how wide to
built his vessel and where to locate the Moon Pool.

The allegation by Collins that the Ark Artifact is a
"Common Geologic Structure" is about to be shown as
nonsense. All of the phi ratios listed below were found by
Windsor in the Ark Artifact from Fasold's data. This rules out
any "chance geological formation". It calls into
question the scientific scholarship by Collins, who did have the
following data, but paid no attention to them.

Figures 1 and 2 are two of Windsor's several drawings of the
Ark Artifact from his computer base. It includes the Artifact's
lines, its lineal measurements and its phi proportions.

As measured from the iron loci, the length of the Ark artifact
that Fasold measured is (a) 6,180 inches in length, or (b) 515
feet, or (c) 300 Egyptian cubits of 20.6 inches each, the cubit's
value in ancient Egypt, the homeland of Moses. Genesis 7 states
that the length of the Ark of Noah was 300 cubits, this Ark
Artifact agrees with Genesis IN LENGTH.

Note, the length of the Ark in English inches (6,l80), which
happens to be "a phi number". Windsor considers the
ancient Sumerian inch to have been 1.001 of a modern English
inch, and was the basic dimension used in designing both Noah's
Ark and the Giza Pyramid in Egypt, also a pre-flood structure.

In the Giza Pyramid is an objected called the "boss"
located in a side wall of the grand gallery of the Great Pyramid.
The gallery is the passage down to the "king's
chamber". The "boss" is a half round protrusion of
polished granite, oriented to the vertical plane, five inches
high, 2.5 inches in radius and 1.001 inches thick. This boss
seems to have been a standard of lineal measure of the time.

Smyth wrote a dissertation on the subject a century ago
explained the .001" difference. The English inch as it
existed before 1700 C.E., and before the metric system was
adopted, was .001 longer than is the modern English inch.

Pi and phi ratios are prominent in the Giza Pyramid, as well
as being prominent in the Ark Artifact formation. Thus it is that
Windsor finds the length of the Ark Artifact, 6,180 inches (1.001
inches), a phi number, to be most interesting.

The circumscribed rectangle is the length of a rectangle,
6,180 inches, the length of the Ark, and having a width of 1,662+
inches. 1,662+ inches was determined as the width of the Ark
Artifact at maximum beam. (Fasold's width measurements of the Ark
Artifact missed slightly the maximum beam). This circumscribed
rectangle measures 10,275,177 sq. inches, or 71,355 sq. ft.

The "developed deck area" of the Ark Artifact is the
water plane of the Ark minus the area of the vessel's Moon Pool
in the middle. The Moon Pool was a rectangular hole in the middle
of the vessel, area 762,712 sq. inches. This rectangular hole
passed completely through the Ark, except it probably was roofed
over.

In the design of oil drilling vessels, there is a hole in the
middle of the vessel, used for the drilling equipment. It is
called the "Moon Pool". It goes all the way through the
vessel. One can dive in it, throw a cup of coffee into it, toss
some garbage, etc.

The Ark had a Moon Pool, which served several purposes. First
and foremost, in rough seas, water came up in it while riding a
large wave. The Moon Pool softened the stresses of the hanging
ends of the vessel in turbulent water. Also, back end of the Moon
Pool was the appropriate place to drop the hawsers connected with
the drogue stones (like anchor stones). Thirdly, water movement
in the Moon Pool assisted in the ventilation of the vessel (and
the Ark did need ventilation).

The area of the circumscribed rectangle, 10,275,163 sq.
inches, compared to the developed deck area, 6,350,400 sq.
inches. This is as phi, 1.618... is 1.000.. Phi "told"
Noah where to place the maximum beam, and where to place the
center of the Moon Pool.

Fasold measured the maximum width of the Ark Artifact at 136
feet, 10 inches. But his measurement was not at the exact center,
where, using marine techniques, Windsor's computer measured the
maximum beam width at 137.3 feet. This is 80.71 Egyptian cubits,
or 1,662.6 inches.

Windsor then "asked" the computer "What is the
average width". The computer indicated the average width of
Noah's vessel was 49.85 cubits. So it is that the maximum width
of the Ark Artifact compares with the average width is phi
(1.618...) compares with one. This is the third of the phi
relationships, and it indicates design, very intelligent design,
nothing less.

The average width of the Ark Artifact was computed at 49.85
cubits. The probable average depth was about 30 cubits. If the
actual average depth were 30.8 cubits, the average width versus
the average depth was another phi ratio, the fourth.

The maximum beam is the major transverse chord. It was located
3,819 inches from the aft. The length of the Ark, 6,180 inches,
was measured and compared to the distance of the transverse chord
(maximum beam to aft). It was 3,819 inches long. 6,180 is to
3,819 as 1.618... is to 1.000.

The distance of the maximum beam to aft is 3,819 inches. The
maximum beam to the bow is 2,361 inches. These are in phi
proportions, .618... and .382... Phi determined the shape of
Noah's Ark.

Another way of saying this is that the length of the Ark
Artifact was divided, .618 between the maximum beam and the aft,
and .382 between the maximum beam and the bow. The inverse of phi
is .618... and the inverse of phi squared is .382...

Windsor maintains that in lofting the lines of the Ark, the
designer also needed the knowledge of pi (3.l4l8...).

Like the distance, maximum beam to the bow is 2,360+ inches.
So also was the length of the Moon Pool. The length of the Moon
Pool, 2,360 inches, compared to the length of the Ark, 6,180
inches, as .382... compares to 1.000. .382 is the square of the
inverse of phi (.6180).

Gilgamesh claimed that he interviewed Noah in his old age, and
cited Noah's responses in the first person singular. The Epic of
Gilgamesh cites the area of the developed deck of the Ark as one
iku. This was the deck area, but excluding the Moon Pool.

One iku was its floor space, ... F10

The developed deck area was 6,350,400 sq. inches, which was
44,100 sq. ft. This was the area measurement of the Sumerian
"iku" and it is also the same area measurement of the
old English acre. The modern American acre, in comparison, is
43,560 sq. ft., or one part in 640 of a square mile.

One Chaldean "iku" and one old English
"acre" are the same. The two words are cognate,
"iku" and "acre". Even as the old inch
standard, 1.001 of a modern inch, appears to be an ancient
Sumerian measure for length, so the Sumerian measure for area was
"one iku", the deck area of (Noah's) Utnapishtim's Ark.

Gilgamesh gives the name of the designer and the captain of
the Ark as "Utnapishtim". In Genesis it is Noah; in the
Egyptian Book of the Dead he is "Nu" and in the Rig
Veda of North India he is "Manu". All appear to be
derived from the "na" syllable of the Ark builder's
Sumerian name.

Genesis offers the three dimensions for the Ark, 30 x 50 x 300
cubits. A box-like shape has been taken for granted by
translators. But, it is a volumetric account, and the Ark was not
box-shaped. However, 50 cubits is within inches of full accuracy
for its average width. This is surprising in its implication, and
in its accuracy.

The Ark Artifact, what is believed to be the visible formation
containing the remains of Noah's Ark, shows the Ark was boat
shaped. This formation agrees with the Genesis account if it is
realized that the width given in Genesis is the average width,
and not the maximum beam.

The depth of the original Ark Artifact could not be
determined. However naval design indicate that 30 cubits, as is
given in Genesis, is appropriate for its average depth.

Collins claims it to be a "natural rock
structure".

I claim that, by and large, this structure does not contain
individual rocks or even loose gravel; it is composed of
deteriorated materials. It did slide down the mountain side from
Uzengili-Nisir, where it was originally moored, some 1,000 feet,
to the present location. Here, its slide ended as the Ark
Artifact was impaled on a large rock. This is the only rock I
saw. Collins saw none at all, having never been there.

Its internal lines are formed by flags, located directly above
iron loci within. The flags form lines. These internal lines
contain various "phi" proportions no less than seven
times, and also the "pi" proportion once. This is
masterful design. If Noah's Ark were to be given a second name,
it ought to be "The Vessel of Phi".

Gilgamesh indicates both planning and design in the Ark.
Genesis indicates both planning and design. Windsor discovers a
profound design, utilizing pi once and phi seven times, if not
more.

Gilgamesh indicates that at the end of its journey, the Ark
was moored at "Nisir" or "Mt. Nisir". The
nearby village [Nasar] is the former name for Uzengili, and was
the name of this Kurdish village for thousands of years. The Ark
Artifact slid downhill from its original moorage to its present
site.

That original moorage site is within shouting distance of the
Ark Artifact. I know. I saw Kurdish children, dressed in gay
colors, and Kurdish men gather around our party, a party of ten
on that inspection day (June 21, 1990). After the Turkish men
were on the site a couple of hours, I heard Kurdish women, from
the Uzengili-Nisir moorage site, some 1,000 feet away, across
arroyo terrain in light mountain air, yelling at their men to
come back and get to work.

Although these relationships might seem to be
logical evidence to indicate that the structure
was originally man-made, I, as a geologist, can
show that all these features could be formed by
natural processes. p. 442

A "Bogus Noah's
Ark" p. 439

Collins paid little attention if any to the materials in
Genesis, in Windsor's two essays, or in Gilgamesh.F12 His essay
serves the Lyellian dogma of gradualism in geology very well, but
it has no scientific value.

Collins brings up the adjective "bogus". If Noah's
Ark was floated into Inner Eurasia by sudden, high velocity
waters, then it is the central dogma of 20th century geology, the
idea of Lyell's gradualism for 500,000,000 years, that is bogus.

And if the erratic boulders once of South India were relocated
by sudden, high velocity waters, into North India, it is doubly
certain that Lyell's dogma of gradualism, embraced by geological
leaders 150 years ago, is "bogus". Such is the essence
of this Collins-Patten debate, of which this essay is Part I of
Patten's two-part response.

F1 Fasold, formerly a ship's officer in the
merchant marine, presumed that iron was used in
the construction of ships fittings in the Ark if
it were the hardest material available. The
forging of iron and brass is recorded in the
pre-flood era (Genesis 4:22). It turns out that
this was a profound insight of Fasold.

"On Mount Nisir the ship landed. Mount
Nisir held the ship fast and did not let (it)
move... (Five times the Epic of Gilgamesh, lines
140-144 affirms the Ark landed on Mt. Nisir).

F4 David Fasold, The Ark of Noah. 1988,
New York, Wynwood Press.

F5 Lorence G. Collins, "Bogus 'Noah's
Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic
Structure". Journal of Geoscience
Education, v. 44, l996, p. 439. Collins'
essay can also be found on Internet at
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo0005/boyush.html

F6 D. N. Wadia, The Geology of India. 1953,
London, McMillan, p. 302.

As water velocities increase, their power to
entrain contaminants increases to the fifth
power. If the velocity of water is increased by
two, its ability to entrain solids increases by
32. If velocity increases 16 fold, its ability to
entrain solids increases by a factor of
1,048,576.

F12 Gilgamesh claims to have interviewed Noah,
and he claims his knowledge came from
Utnapishtim. Noah also told Gilgamesh the cause
of the deluge. That specific cause is cited in
Table XI, lines 167 to 171 and it is further
implicated in line 16. Windsor and I both concur
with Gilgamesh's identification.

Donald W. Patten was born in Conrad, Montana, and has a B.A.
degree in geography from the Univ. of Washington (l952) and a
M.A. degree from the same institution (1962). He is the author of
The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch 1966), The Long
Day of Joshua (1973), and Catastrophism and the Old
Testament (1988). With Windsor, he is the co-author of The
Recent Organization of the Solar System (1995) and The
Last of the Mars-Earth Wars (1997). Projected for 1998 is
their The Flood of Noah. In addition, Windsor and Patten
have written over ten published essays on Earth history.

A Debate: The Site of Noah's Ark<http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenSiteNoahsArk.html>